Re: 'In regard to speculating about their origins, the question might be whether art or science came first in the evolution of humanity. '
Given that science in the current acceptation of the word did not really get under way until the 16th/17/th century, and art began in Palaeolithic times, if not before, the answer seems to me fairly clear cut. DA On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Frances Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frances to William and others. > > > > Dealing with any relation that might exist between art and > science remains a complicated thorn for me. In regard to > speculating about their origins, the question might be whether > art or science came first in the evolution of humanity. It seems > clear that in the evolution of humans their intelligence must > have came before their art or science, because a dumb brute brain > cannot be filled with the signs and symbols of art or science, or > language for that matter. The causes of art and science in any > event would of course seem to lay with the growth of humanity, > but not necessarily within the realm of knowledge. Even > primordial persons and primitive peoples after all engage in such > acts. This implies that these acts are grounded in biotics and > anthropics, rather than in ethnics and epistemics. The > determination of objects being art and science would therefore > lay initially with feelings, rather than mainly with knowings. > This then is a fuzzy contradiction for me. > > > > What the artist and the scientist may have in common is the > "independent" awareness of their feeling or knowing the very > objects and actions they engage. They should after all pursue > their activities for its own sake, and expect nothing in return > for the effort. It may be that the artist wishes to feel what the > form of an artwork really might be and for the pure sake of it, > even independent of being aware of feeling it, but whether the > artist in so feeling has the same feeling simultaneously towards > art as a typical class itself is unclear. In other words, the > artist engaged in doing art may not care about it. > > > > If the particular token as say an artifice, and its global tone > as say some artfulness, and the global type as say the art, are > all felt together at once by the artist in the one artwork, then > this suggests that tonal qualities and typical classes can very > well be as objective as the token fact that carries or implies > them; and independent of mind. This is a metaphysical conclusion, > but would be supported by idealist realism and its naturalist > pragmatism. Furthermore, if art and science are held to be > objective global classes, then the forms of art and the laws of > science must also exist objectively and independent of mind. The > factuality and the actuality of such existent classes and forms > and laws would exist independent of mind, but the reality of such > things would be dependent on subjective sense and thus mind. > Under such a realist approach even imagined fantasies and deluded > illusions and fictional figures and alien worlds would be justly > sensed as real. The artist in doing their art may assume a goal, > be it the substantive manifestation of attributed essences as a > reality, which implies some "dependent" awareness in > contradiction to mainly an "independent" awareness, but then all > art in being pursued for the sake of the pursuit itself tends to > suggest that art is functionally functionless. > > > > > > William wrote. > > I don't see this issue as very complicated. A > > scientist wants to know what a thing really is, > > independent of our knowing it. That's the goal. It's > > understood that some part of knowing is subjective, > > limited by the human brain and how we think but that > > does not preclude the properties of independent things > > being identified, measured, etc. An artist may work > > as a scientist, as some Renaissance artists did, more > > or less, but most commonly artists want to express an > > experience of something, be it objective or subjective > > or both. Generally the artist's goal differs from the > > scientist's goal, the scientist wants to know the > > objective reality and the artist wants to express the > > subjective reality, both in a matter of, let's say, > > degrees.
